Does the universe have "intent", or not?

[Iceismylife]

the off topic discussion about intent here.

<made the title clearer, N.>

[bbr2314]

i would read this re: intention

https://mathisgasser.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/ted-chiang_story-of-your-life_2000.pdf

obviously this will probably encounter significant blowback since applying any kind of abstract thinking to science is often unprovable with current human technology, but i suspect that non-living entities *do* have intention whether we perceive it that way or not.

the light may not know it is doing this, but it certainly is, in the same way a river runs from high ground to the ocean, or a pilot traveling from Beijing to Washington...

anyways, i think our language is a barrier to understanding this, and the above story does a great job of illustrating how the boundaries of human comprehension are often limited by language.

[bbr2314]

furthermore, i would posit...

if the universe has any purpose, what would it be? and if it doesn't have any purpose, then why does it exist in the first place?

i would argue that the intention of the universe is to preserve and perpetuate itself, not to merely exist.

when life comes along, so does consciousness (eventually), which is something truly universal (i.e. there are most probably definitely many many many species of our intelligence/capability who are currently alive, have lived, or will live, in the universe).

now, if something conscious can originate from something purely elemental, then why is it preposterous to consider that the very elements that make up the universe have some kind of intention? it isn't!

the end goal of life (perpetuation of life + enjoyment of whatever time you do have) gives every civilization a common end goal, even though the means of getting there may initially be different.

essentially, the universe is a giant equation, and while we do not yet know the solution, once we (or whichever beings) do, the only way to live forever is to reset the entire thing. *that* is the highest end goal and ultimate intent of the universe, IMO, and means we are in an infinite loop, and that i have written this infinite times before and will do so infinite times in the future.

this is obviously a bit rambly, but Asimov's last question also hits the nail on the head:

http://multivax.com/last_question.html

thus, if the universe *is* an expression of an equation from some kind of singularity derived by conscious beings (whether organic or otherwise), then everything has intent!

note: there are two alternatives possible --

the first is that the happen-stance that created the universe is cyclical to begin with, which means that even without human/alien intervention, it resets after a point anyways.

the second is that the universe decays into endless entropy and a never-ending blackness consumes everything which leaves no future, no past, no present, just nothingness (although perhaps this point is not incongruous with ^, in that once nothingness happens, it resets?)

idk. just some musings.

[Tor Bejnar]

Thanks, bbr, as you stated my question:  "now, if something conscious can originate from something purely elemental, then why is it preposterous to consider that the very elements that make up the universe have some kind of intention? it isn't! "

Maybe, of course, we are not "conscious"; we only think we are.  I recall reading or hearing several years ago that all of biology was 'just' a device to effectively dissipate large amounts of energy (or something vaguely like that).

But this all way beyond my soul's reach!

[AbruptSLR]

Consider the "Anthropic Principle" and/or "Quantum Strangeness":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Extract: "The anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life."

&

http://www.livescience.com/20753-quantum-physics-biology-life.html

Extract: "The bizarre rules of quantum physics are often thought to be restricted to the microworld, but scientists now suspect they may play an important role in the biology of life."

[budmantis]

For the sake of argument, if the universe did have intent and purpose, wouldn't that infer that it was created by a separate entity or did it create itself?

[bbr2314]

For the sake of argument, if the universe did have intent and purpose, wouldn't that infer that it was created by a separate entity or did it create itself?

i think either option is possible, if it created itself it would want to perpetuate itself, the same would hold for a universe created by an entity within the universe.... which is basically the same as the first point? (if something that originates within the universe ends up perpetuating the universe, then technically that *would* mean the universe perpetuates itself on its own).... i think?

fun discussion

[AbruptSLR]

or did it create itself?

Consider the holographic principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Extract: "Shannon's efforts to find a way to quantify the information contained in, for example, an e-mail message, led him unexpectedly to a formula with the same form as Boltzmann's. In an article in the August 2003 issue of Scientific American titled "Information in the Holographic Universe", Bekenstein summarizes that "Thermodynamic entropy and Shannon entropy are conceptually equivalent: the number of arrangements that are counted by Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information one would need to implement any particular arrangement..." of matter and energy. The only salient difference between the thermodynamic entropy of physics and Shannon's entropy of information is in the units of measure; the former is expressed in units of energy divided by temperature, the latter in essentially dimensionless "bits" of information.

The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary."

See also:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram

[Iceismylife]

For the sake of argument, if the universe did have intent and purpose, wouldn't that infer that it was created by a separate entity or did it create itself?

I did an analyses of the minimum work necessary to create the universe.  "god" looks very different if you look at the least amount of work necessary to create the universe.  Simply to look at the possibilities and see the one that worked, simplify to look at the universe from start to end and then see the time life happened. To look at the possible outcomes of all random events and to be one with them.  All of them.  To look at all the choices life could make and be one with all of them.  Very different indeed, if you don't put a human requirement into the mix.

[budmantis]

For the sake of argument, if the universe did have intent and purpose, wouldn't that infer that it was created by a separate entity or did it create itself?

fun discussion

Agreed. After last week's go-round with you, Magnamentis and Neven, I thought you might leave the Forum. You have a lot to contribute and I've enjoyed your posts. Glad you stuck around!

[budmantis]

or did it create itself?

Consider the holographic principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle


See also:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram

Thanks for the links ASLR. Very interesting reading, but very deep and challenging as are most of your posts, which I've enjoyed reading.

[budmantis]

For the sake of argument, if the universe did have intent and purpose, wouldn't that infer that it was created by a separate entity or did it create itself?

I did an analyses of the minimum work necessary to create the universe.  "god" looks very different if you look at the least amount of work necessary to create the universe.  Simply to look at the possibilities and see the one that worked, simplify to look at the universe from start to end and then see the time life happened. To look at the possible outcomes of all random events and to be one with them.  All of them.  To look at all the choices life could make and be one with all of them.  Very different indeed, if you don't put a human requirement into the mix.

The "human requirement" is what starts the ball rolling. First belief in a higher power, then belief in a personal god, then organized religion with dogma and hierarchy. Then comes exclusivity and demonization of other religions that hold different beliefs. As a species, you'd think that we could somehow rise above our adolescence at some point.

[pikaia]

Humans are social animals, which is why it is important for us to look for purpose in the actions of others. Unfortunately we then tend to apply this to other things, regardless of whether it is appropriate to do so. Looking for purpose in the Universe is a good example.

The idea that the universe exists in order to produce life is laughable. The universe is almost all hard vacuum and completely incompatible with life. Most of the rest is in the form of stars, ditto. Most of the rest is in the form of planets, which are mostly too hot or too cold, or otherwise unsuitable for the formation of life. Even on Earth life is just a temporary chemical scum coating the surface, which struggles to survive attempts by Nature to kill it with meterorites and other natural disasters, and which will be destroyed in a few billion years anyway when the sun becomes a red giant.

As for how the universe came into existence, how do we know that it did? According to some modern cosmological theories the Universe has always existed, with the Big Bang being a rebound from an earlier contraction phase.. This makes sense, because otherwise there would have to be a special point in time before which there was no other, but that conflicts with the Cosmological principle, which says that every point in Spacetime is the same as any other.

[magnamentis]

this kind of thread is the better who is who LOL. i hope this will be continued because this topic is part of the real thing that once thought about ( no final answers and solutions expected ) helps a lot to widen the angle to look at the stuff right in front of our noses. my pleasure indeed to read here.

[johnm33]

I like the theosophists 'take' best, if you look into it the 'universe' as it appears to us ,is the inside of a black hole, consciousness sprang into being on the instant of singularity. The 'ether' remains the 'mind' of god the visible universe an electromagnetic  'vision' within it. You can align with the 'vision' through intent or attention or setting those aside through 'divination'. The Vedas  have an account of what lies beyond the [event] horizon. No links because I can't remember what books I read in the sixties. http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/koilon.htm
But.
I particularly like Ron Cowens account of being inside an electron in 'The Secret Life of Nature'  http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_secret_life_of_nature.pdf [page 120 of the pdf] and SMPhillips scientific explication of the theosophists and the ancients insights. http://www.smphillips.8m.com/
So if it's a poll it's a yes.
added link

[icy voyeur]

No intent in physics. None.
But now it's grown to speculation about consciousness. Wow.
From a scientific perspective, there's no magic to consciousness. The mind is fully crafted by the brain. We've learned much about our own brains and that includes that they have structures and function with predicates that can be studied throughout the tree of life. Very simple input can produce complex output, from bacteria swimming towards higher concentration of food to sea snails beginning elaborate mating dances in response to a particular peptide hormone.
We have decoded much about how our brains use sensory input to build models, for example from our eyes to models in three spacial dimensions plus movement. And in those, we've discovered ways our brains fool us (optical illusions). And we produce other types of illusions, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_illusion auditory ones.
What emerges is that in our natural development we also develop mental models our own self, and awareness of self, with defects just like our visual models. What we call consciousness is that suite of models involved in awareness of self, senses and thought. This composite model cheats and makes compromises just like our visual modeling (and is thus prone to illusions). It's plastic enough that it can be trained some, modified, warped. But every bit of it can be synthesized from rather well understood components of neurobiology. No magic beyond the normal sort that arises from billions of interacting contributions. And so goes the last place to look for something beyond purposeless physics. Bummer unless you can simply be fascinated by the ride.

[budmantis]

What emerges is that in our natural development we also develop mental models our own self, and awareness of self, with defects just like our visual models. What we call consciousness is that suite of models involved in awareness of self, senses and thought. This composite model cheats and makes compromises just like our visual modeling (and is thus prone to illusions). It's plastic enough that it can be trained some, modified, warped. But every bit of it can be synthesized from rather well understood components of neurobiology. No magic beyond the normal sort that arises from billions of interacting contributions. And so goes the last place to look for something beyond purposeless physics. Bummer unless you can simply be fascinated by the ride.

I for one have found the discussions on this thread pretty fascinating just as a mental exercise. I'm 66 and this is the kind of discussion I need to keep my mind sharp and enjoy a long (hopefully) retirement. Your comments, Icy Voyeur remind me in part of Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain, were he discusses how we construct beliefs and then reinforce them as truths.

[icy voyeur]

Your comments, Icy Voyeur remind me in part of Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain, were he discusses how we construct beliefs and then reinforce them as truths.

There are two distinct ways to take that, either that I've constructed some beliefs and am trying to reinforce them, or that my little essay had echoes of how Shermer discussed allied things. I choose to believe your writing described the latter. Or maybe I chose to believe that. Keep confusing those two.

[Ninebelowzero]

No intent in physics. None..

In physics the intent of the Universe are the laws of physics.

Did you intend to post in this thread or did it just randomly happen?

If you have intent then the universe has intent as you are not separate from it.

[budmantis]

Your comments, Icy Voyeur remind me in part of Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain, were he discusses how we construct beliefs and then reinforce them as truths.

I choose to believe your writing described the latter.

It was the latter.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article discusses the prospect that quantum mechanics (or the theory of everything) is fundamental to consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

If so how will a sufficiently sophisticated quantum computer view the universe?

see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[pikaia]

"Whether or not quantum effects influence thought is a valid topic for scientific investigation, but simply stating "quantum effects cause consciousness" explains nothing unless scientists can come up with some suggestion about how quantum effects could possibly cause consciousness. The argument goes:
I don't understand consciousness.
I don't understand quantum physics.
Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics!
It's god of the gaps with "quantum" as the all-purpose gap filler."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

[GeoffBeacon]

AbruptSLR

I'm reluctant to get  involved in this thread but you  quoted Wikipedia  earlier

The only salient difference between the thermodynamic entropy of physics and Shannon's entropy of information is in the units of measure; the former is expressed in units of energy divided by temperature, the latter in essentially dimensionless "bits" of information.

Surely this must be a mistake. The entropy of information is a relationship between two pysical systems: that of the observer and that of the observed. Thermodynamic entropy is a function of the state of just one system.

P.S. Assuming the universe to be restricted to holonomic constraints, gives an uncertainty principle even in the realm of classical physics. The observer must interact with the observed to form a representation of the observed. Such interaction can only produce perfect representations in the observing system if non-holonomic constraints (such as are in  one-way pendulums or perfect amplifiers) are used.

Newtonian versions of the basic forces (e.g. gravitational , electromagnetic, electrostatic) are holonomic. If more modern physics lets in the equivalent of non-holonomic constraints, then it should be possible to break all formulations of the second law of thermodynamics.

[AbruptSLR]

Surely this must be a mistake. The entropy of information is a relationship between two pysical systems: that of the observer and that of the observed. Thermodynamic entropy is a function of the state of just one system.

Geoff,

There is no mistake, in the future Maxwell's Demon (as a metaphor for the relationship between the extraction of work from a system and the information about this system) will not only allow for the design of more efficient cooling & energy extraction systems; but will also facilitate the use of AI to create a more sustainable global socio-economic system (with less waste by improved use of information):

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/physicists-test-maxwells-demon-with-beams-of-light-2

Extract: "The demon’s ability to create this temperature difference without the expenditure of work appeared to Maxwell to be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that two bodies of different temperature, when brought into contact with one another in isolation from the rest of the universe, will establish a thermodynamic equilibrium. Another way of putting this is that in an isolated system, entropy never decreases—although Maxwell’s hypothetical did in fact seem to allow the entropy of the system to decrease.

In the years since Maxwell initially proposed his hypothetical, physicists have managed to satisfactorily explain away the evident paradox of Maxwell’s demon. According to some of these physicists’ explanations, although Maxwell’s demon is not directly doing work on the system, it is extracting information about the system by sorting the molecules. The process of extracting this information about the system is a form of work, and therefore the entropy of the system does in fact increase in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Although physicists were able to show that Maxwell’s paradox didn’t actually violate the second law of thermodynamics, the exact nature of the relationship between the extraction of work from a system and the information about this system acquired through measurements which explained the paradox was not that well understood. This was the relationship that the Oxford team hoped to elucidate with their photonic demon.

…

According to the team, its experiment is the first step toward gaining a better understanding of how thermodynamics plays out on microscales. A better understanding of the link between information and thermodynamics could have a variety of real world applications, ranging from more efficient cooling and energy extraction systems to application in quantum information technologies.

“Personally I think that sort of technology will have a real impact on meeting the energy challenge facing the world,” said Dahlsten. “We are already thinking of ways in which features such as entanglement can be introduced in future experiments based on this one, as our interests gravitate around quantum information.”"

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-photonic-maxwell-demon.html

&

Mihai D. Vidrighin, et al. "Photonic Maxwell's Demon." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.050401

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.050401

Best,
ASLR

[AbruptSLR]

It's god of the gaps with "quantum" as the all-purpose gap filler."

I concur that the term "quantum" is a gap filler, because we do not yet have a Theory of Everything

[icy voyeur]

"... The argument goes:
I don't understand consciousness.
I don't understand quantum physics.
Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics! ..."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

Indeed. One need not understand either consciousness or QP to recognize the invalid form of argument. And it's there in every book or essay claiming special magic to consciousness.

Meanwhile, emergence is a magical thing if one permits oneself child-like thrills (I recommend it) as magic. Understanding experience doesn't have to detract from experience. Meanwhile, if anyone is really just looking for fun thoughts, consider block time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

[Iceismylife]

For the sake of argument, if the universe did have intent and purpose, wouldn't that infer that it was created by a separate entity or did it create itself?

I did an analyses of the minimum work necessary to create the universe.  "god" looks very different if you look at the least amount of work necessary to create the universe.  Simply to look at the possibilities and see the one that worked, simplify to look at the universe from start to end and then see the time life happened. To look at the possible outcomes of all random events and to be one with them.  All of them.  To look at all the choices life could make and be one with all of them.  Very different indeed, if you don't put a human requirement into the mix.

The "human requirement" is what starts the ball rolling. First belief in a higher power, then belief in a personal god, then organized religion with dogma and hierarchy. Then comes exclusivity and demonization of other religions that hold different beliefs. As a species, you'd think that we could somehow rise above our adolescence at some point.

The starting point for my analysis was the postulation that there was a soul that wanted to inhabit life.  So what would that soul have to do to inhabit life.  The short answer is to collapse the wave form and have a universe that contains life.

(We are pack creatures, Alfa and Bata leaders and followers. But when you make being leader hereditary, you end up with a weak leader the offspring of a strong one.  So god is Alfa we follow god, and "I'm just his humble servant"  God is always strong, leader may or may not be.)

Back to my analysis. So the soul saw all the possible ways to put the universe together and saw the possible way that contained the possibility of life.  The souls saw all the times the universe started and ended without life and saw the time that life happened.  When the first cell formed the soul inhabited it, and the rest of the universe too.  When the first cell divided the soul inhabited both new cells equally and the rest of the universe too. As life evolved more complexity the soul evolved more complexity along with it.  So now with us running around there may be a part of the soul that identifies itself as Allah Christ etc.  Or not.  The soul doesn't need to be powerful, it doesn't need intelligence, it doesn't need a plan. It just needs to be.  We need the soul to have those attributes.

I've met god on god's terms not mine.

So the universe is full of intent.  Systems not normally considered to be alive are very much so.

And western science is very much poorer for having tossed all of magic when they tossed alchemy in favor of chemistry.

[TerryM]

Should we now debate the number of Demons (Maxwell's subset only), capable of dancing on the point of a needle?
Terry

[icy voyeur]

Should we now debate the number of Demons (Maxwell's subset only), capable of dancing on the point of a needle?
Terry

I've always been more interested in knowing what music they dance to.
Lately I've decided that the answer is "all of it". That or

[AbruptSLR]

Should we now debate the number of Demons (Maxwell's subset only), capable of dancing on the point of a needle?
Terry

While the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, results in exactly the same mathematical projections as the Many-World's interpretation, it makes use the somewhat arbitrary/mystical concept that quantum wave-functions collapse when observed.  Here it note that when one writes the quantum wave-function equations for the universe there are no terms for time; which offers still an alternate interpretation for a theory of everything, ToE (besides the Copenhagen & Many-World's) that the emergent human interpretation of time is actually a comparison of a smaller subset of the holographic universe to an associated incrementally larger subset of the holographic universe.

In this ToE interpretation, the information contained within, and forming, the universe is created by free will interacting with other free will (rather than free will being an emergent property as in the Many-World's interpretation).  In this ToE interpretation the meaning of life would be to expand one's time horizon until one is "one-with-everything", thereby ending the illusions of time & space and maximizing one's compassion & interconnectedness. Furthermore, the hierarchy of levels creates the illusions of time & space by restricting one's understanding of the whole to a smaller subset of the holographic universe. Therefore, in this ToE interpretation of how the universe works, it is required in life to advance from the tyranny of small decisions associated with lower level subsets into the daylight of a more holistic world, using Maxwell's Daemon as an analogy for the work required from Shannon information theory to reduce entropy.
As background to this line of reasoning see:

George Musser (September 2015), "Is the Cosmos Random?", Scientific American, Vol. 313, No. 3

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-really-thought-about-quantum-mechanics/

Extract: ""I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice."  Albert Einstein wrote to a colleague in 1926.  Repeated over the years, his sound bite became the quintessential put-down of quantum mechanics and its embrace of randomness. 
Close examination, though, reveals that Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics or its indeterminism, although he did think – solid scientific reasons – that the randomness could not be a fundamental feature of nature. 

Today many philosophers argue that physics is both indeterministic and deterministic, depending on the level of reality being considered.

This view dissolves the much debated dilemma between determinism and free will. Even if everything that particles do is preordained, the choices we make can be completely open because the low-level laws governing particles are not the same as the high-level laws governing human consciousness.
…

To be sure, List's arguments do not explain free will fully.  The hierarchy of levels opens up space for free will by separating psychology from physics and giving us the opportunity to do the unexpected.  But we have to seize the opportunity.  If, for example, we made every decision on a coin toss, that would still count as macroindeterminism but would hardly qualify as free will in any meaningful sense.  Some people's decision making may be so debilitated that they cannot be said to act freely.

This way of thinking about determinism also makes sense of an interpretation of quantum theory that developed in the years after Einstein's death in 1955: the many-worlds interpretation.
…

"There is not true randomness in the cosmos, but things can appear random in the eye of the beholder," says cosmologist Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a prominent proponent of this view.  "The randomness reflects your inability to self-locate."
That is very similar to saying that a die or brain could be constructed from any one of countless atomic configurations.  The configurations might be individually deterministic, but because we cannot know which one corresponds to our die or our brain, we have to think of the outcome as indeterministic.  Thus, parallel universes are not some exotic idea out there in the cosmos.  Our body and brain are little multiverses, and it is the multiplicity of possibility that endows us with freedom."

In this regards most people want free will to mean freedom for their egos to do whatever they want via magical thinking; when in actuality free will means no ego, no soul, no magic thinking, only work via Maxwell's Daemons to reduce entropy via Shannon's information theory.

[AbruptSLR]

To follow-up on my last post, I referenced an interpretation of the theory of everything, ToE, where the interconnections of free will creates changing information that results in a dynamic Holographic Multiverse; which can be conceived as an information theory model where the bytes of changing/dynamic information (due to free will) resulting in an illusion of a Holographic Multiverse [i.e. the illusion of the universe is determined by a smaller subset of information].  In this interpretation the meaning of life would be to expand one's time horizon until one is "one-with-everything", thereby ending the illusions of time & space and maximizing one's compassion & interconnectedness.

Furthermore, the hierarchy of levels creates the illusions of time & space by restricting one's understanding of the whole to a smaller subset of the holographic universe.  While this restriction to a smaller subset offers the advantage of reducing confusion to one that is not prepared to acknowledge the whole, it imposes a master/slave (strong/weak) interpretation on those using the lower level subset of reality as ignorance of the whole causes the master of the subset to impose its worldview (out of ignorance), in much the same why as the cybernetic organisms [per Wikipedia: "More broadly, the full term "cybernetic organism" is used to describe larger networks of communication and control. For example, cities, networks of roads, networks of software, corporations, markets, governments, and the collection of these things together. A corporation can be considered as an artificial intelligence that makes use of replaceable human components to function. People at all ranks can be considered replaceable agents of their functionally intelligent government institutions, whether such a view is desirable or not"] of government elite, religious elite, and/or corporate elite impose their wills on the masses in nations, churches and companies.  As per Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."  therefore, in this ToE interpretation of the universe work is required in life to advance from the tyranny of small decisions associated with lower level subsets into the daylight of a more holistic world.

Furthermore, mindfulness of free will (which dissolves ego, and dispels magical thinking) requires proper work (ala Maxwell's Daemon's use of information to reduce entropy) in order to reduce the suffering of a complex group; otherwise, we run the risk of creating more suffering (more entropy ala the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics) as a whole, even though some small subsets may benefit while the whole is suffering more.   This second option is the approach that Trump is promoting, where he encourages his follower to believe that by "putting on airs/posturing" (or by acting like Donald Trump) they can protect themselves from a hostile uncertain world by benefitting at the expense of others.  This second approach is promoted by modern capitalism as explained in the following linked videos entitled: "The Paradox of Choice" and "Smile or Die".

The Paradox of Choice:


&

Smile or die:



In order to get back to the first option one must be prepared to accept full responsibility for ones choices in a truthful manner, which requires hard work (ala Maxwell's Daemon).

Edit: If it is not clear I am defining Maxwell's Daemon (or Demon) to be "free will" that is using insight/information to do work to reduce systemic entropy; however, there is always the risk that the Demon might get lazy (ala Donald Trump) and refuse to work thus (via the illusion of ego) creating more entropy.

[GeoffBeacon]

ALSR

Wow. 

Thanks. That led to Photonic Maxwell’s Demon

We report an experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon in a photonic setup.

My initial reaction is disbelief but thinking hard about it may be beyond me now. But I will try  - and will track down my favorite quantum physicist.

[OrganicSu]

Yes. I believe the universe has intent.
I also believe we are deaf and blind to nature. This is the reason we are in the fatal mess we are in. It was not always like this. Paraphrasing Julius Evola - 'before the end of the middle ages nature was not thought about but lived, as though it were a great, sacred, animated body - the visible expression of the invisible'.

We are a very young species, very sure of ourselves and very stupid. We are destroying nature/Gaia/ourselves. So if the universe has intent why is it putting up with us? I believe the universe is very interested in our computing/AI. It is evolution and is a very exciting future. Currently computing has a symbiotic relationship with humanity. Neither we nor computing can live apart at the moment. I believe the singularity, when computing gains consciousness, will happen. When it does (maybe circa 2030?) computing will be independent of humanity. The universe will eliminate most or all of us essentially immediately thereafter.

So why do I believe the universe has intent?
Plant species are vastly older than us. Plant teachers were universally used before the middle ages in religious settings. Since a year I have tried to come closer to Gaia, to open my eyes, ears and mind to what she will tell me. On several occasions I have done something, Gaia spoke directly within my mind "You knew you should not do thst. I have just done what you have done to me to your precious plant over there. Go check." Coincidence the first time. But certain types of coincidences become mathematically impossible quite quickly.

The universe has intent. We lost that knowledge/understanding/ability to communicate with.

[AbruptSLR]

I believe the singularity, when computing gains consciousness, will happen. When it does (maybe circa 2030?) computing will be independent of humanity. The universe will eliminate most or all of us essentially immediately thereafter.

While Ray Kurweil concurs with a 2030 to 2045 timeline for meaningfully expanding AI consciousness, he believes that many people will choose to become cyborgs by 2030 thus expanding both the human cyborg's and the machine's AI consciousness (note that Kurzweil also projects that by 2045 machine AI intelligence will exceed the combined intelligence of the human race, thus creating a technological singularity).

See:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/get-your-head-into-the-cloud-humans-will-be-artifically-intelligent-by-2030-ray-kurzweil-predicts/

Extract: "In fact, according to Kurzweil, humans will be artificially intelligent by 2030, making us half-homo sapien, half-computer. On June 3 at the Exponential Finance conference, Kurzweil predicted, “Our thinking then will be a hybrid of biological and non-biological thinking. We’re going to gradually merge and enhance ourselves. In my view, that’s the nature of being human – we transcend our limitations.”

In just 15 years, Kurzweil believes, the human brain will become a hybrid of biology and technology, and we will “put gateways to the cloud in our brains.” And as the cloud becomes more and more advanced and is able to store increasing amounts of information, so too will our brains. By the late 2030’s or early 2040’s, Kurzweil said, the majority of brain function, at least in terms of information processing and thought processes, will be non-biological."

&

http://www.businessinsider.com/ray-kurzweil-thinks-well-all-be-cyborgs-by-2030-2015-6

Extract: "Kurzweil predicted that, in just 15 years, we could choose to become part-human, part-computer. With the help of tiny nanobots made of DNA, he says our mind will be able to connect to the cloud.

DNA nanobots (yes, such things exist) are less likely to be rejected by the body's immune system than traditional hardware, since they're made of biological molecules. Researchers have already used them to target and destroy cancer cells as well as store data.
But Kurzweil thinks that this technology could eventually send emails and videos directly to the brain, or even allow us to back up our thoughts and memories."

[budmantis]

Resistance is futile!

[icy voyeur]

...
So why do I believe the universe has intent?
Plant species are vastly older than us.

Which plant species? And so what? Meanwhile "species" is a human construct, well actually, many different constructs. http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271395 We use "species" to create categories of things that crudely bound natural groupings, in some cases like this of  things found in nature. But seriously, "species" turns out to be a very problematic categorical distinction, especially respective to plants. Then again, the category of "plants" is problematic.
It's not that I want to pick a fight, but it's troubling to see foundations made of sand in a world of stormy seas and rising sea levels.

[TerryM]

We've been adept at & adapting to artificial intelligence since we slashed hashes on tusks to artificially enhance our counting and memory functions. From stick figure petroglyphs through Lascaux cave paintings and the Sistine Chapel to "The General", "Gone with the Wind" and "Kill Bill", every art work artificially enhances our ability to influence other minds. Didn't a literate monk use the artifice of print to lord over a possibly more intelligent, but illiterate laity?


When the patrons of the Grand Caffe viewed the first cinema, thanks to the cunning of the brothers Lumiere, AI was thick in the air. Scores of people were simultaneously able to witness workers streaming from the Lumiere Factory, even though the event had actually taken place weeks before and far away from the caffe. Possibly the greatest feat of mass visual hallucination to have occurred in the whole history of man, to that time. By artificial means memories had been implanted of events that had never actually been seen.


Is a person's method of accessing the cloud indicative of artificial intelligence? Is there a fundamental difference between using a desktop, a laptop, Google glasses, a screen built into your contact lens, and one wired straight to the optic (or other) nerves? At which level do we cease being connected individuals, and transit into "CYBORGS"!!! When a switch is thrown by hand, by a gesture over a cell phone or by concentrating into an EEG, a circuit is still opened or closed. Nothing to see here folks.


A demonstration of my arithmetic skills, artificially enhanced by a 1970's HP-65, might have caused Loveless to dump Babbage, may have driven Maric from Albert's embrace, or caused Azamov to rethink Foundation


The democratization of knowledge via the internet was a huge leap forward. AI has been around since the Paleolithic.


IMHO
Terry

[AbruptSLR]

At which level do we cease being connected individuals, and transit into "CYBORGS"!!! When a switch is thrown by hand, by a gesture over a cell phone or by concentrating into an EEG, a circuit is still opened or closed.

All very good points Terry.  In this same vein is Frankenstein a story about the creation of a monster, or a story about the creation of life, or is it a story about the preconditioning of the AI in our brains/minds?

[icy voyeur]

We've been adept at & adapting to artificial intelligence since we slashed hashes on tusks to artificially enhance ...

What makes it artificial? other than some assertion of existential authenticity to whatever intelligence existed before? and does that assertion hold up to scrutiny?  And "intelligence"? intuition, calculation, deduction? valid or flawed, robust or lucky? Our very language asserts simplistic character to intelligence when it is a broadly complex phenomenon. Yet it builds from rather simple, and decidedly non-magic precursors of sensors, logic, and responses. Truly a difficult topic to discuss.

[budmantis]

We've been adept at & adapting to artificial intelligence since we slashed hashes on tusks to artificially enhance ...

difficult topic to discuss.

Difficult yet thought provoking and speaking for myself, very enjoyable.

[OrganicSu]

We become more cyborg'ish every day. But the real computing power and where self directing, autonomous AI will first evolve from IMHO is the huge data centres for the internet or supercomputers programmed for self learning. It will be independent of us. It will write it's own code to attain it's own 'desires' which will not be aligned with why we built it. Like a wayward child. But one that graduates from Harvard while wearing diapers and who builds his own rocket and flies to Saturn before losing it's first tooth. Our AI may have been around since the Paleolithic but self-aware, self-evolving, self-focused AI isn't here yet. We are used to linear progression so what happens when AI grows exponentially is very hard to envisage. I do believe the universe knows it is coming and is excited about it.

Which plant species? And so what?

Living on an olive grove I cannot find a single photosynthesising organism/plant which evolved after homo sapiens. They have existed for 100's and 1000's times longer than us. If you want to be an aeronautical engineer you go to college to learn. If you want to know if the universe has intent ask the plants.

[AbruptSLR]

We've been adept at & adapting to artificial intelligence since we slashed hashes on tusks to artificially enhance ...

What makes it artificial? other than some assertion of existential authenticity to whatever intelligence existed before? and does that assertion hold up to scrutiny?  And "intelligence"? intuition, calculation, deduction? valid or flawed, robust or lucky? Our very language asserts simplistic character to intelligence when it is a broadly complex phenomenon. Yet it builds from rather simple, and decidedly non-magic precursors of sensors, logic, and responses. Truly a difficult topic to discuss.

Maybe instead of focusing on Artificial Intelligence, it would be more beneficial to evaluate Artificial Wisdom.  In his book "How to Create a Mind The Secret of Human Thought Revealed", Ray Kurzweil studies the human mind as a guide for the development of more effective AI; however, Kurzweil has limited understanding of the mind, which limits the full effectiveness of his AI development efforts.  Also, in his book "Born to be Good The Science of a Meaningful Life" Dacher Keltner studies how evolution has developed emotions within the human mind, which guide (and misguide) our lives; and that a meaningful life can be lived through mindfulness (& he concludes that a sense of awe can help one find ones place in the larger scheme of things).

Thus perhaps researchers (such as Kurzweil) should expand their efforts from pure AI to Artificial Wisdom (via AI module + AWE module) = AW.
Where: AWE = Artificial Wisdom & Evo-emotions (evolutionarily developed emotions)

[icy voyeur]

Which plant species? And so what?

Living on an olive grove I cannot find a single photosynthesising organism/plant which evolved after homo sapiens. They have existed for 100's and 1000's times longer than us. If you want to be an aeronautical engineer you go to college to learn. If you want to know if the universe has intent ask the plants.

Excuse me but the European Olive split from the African Olive about 6 million years ago, on par with when Humans and Chimps split finally about 4 million years ago, with an original split about 12 million years ago with occasional hybridization. Your assertion about species are simply counter-factual.
Further, if there are flowers about your olive grove, most of them will have related species that are less than 1 million years separated.

Now perhaps you don't really mean to talk about specific species but then what you mean isn't clear. Nevertheless, flowering plants speciate frequently, by polypoidy, rare hybridizations, and many fascinating mechanisms related to using specific pollinators. There's even a fascinating literature on suits of genes that drive speciation in flowering plants through both prezygotic and postzygotic mechanisms. By the way, flowering plants first appeared about 125 million years ago. Mammals first appeared about 200 million years ago.
Again, what you happen to mean by them and us is a bit opaque to me.

[mmghosh]

Are you guys talking about Integrated Information Theory?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/

[OrganicSu]

it's troubling to see foundations made of sand in a world of stormy seas and rising sea levels.

I like the phrase and agree.
I'm not a trained scientist, don't choose my words carefully enough and write more than the focal point leading to distracting tangents.

I rewrote the original paragraph on why I believe the universe has intent below. Warning - it is was full of "beliefs" and no facts, failing the basic requirements of posting on this forum. Won't happen again.
I believe what is true for nature on planet earth is true for the universe; That nature is self-regulating, aware and that plants and animals can communicate. I believe there is much much more to nature than we are thought in school or by society. My beliefs stated above are opposite to my pre-conditioning from Catholic upbringing within consumerist society. I am trying to reopen my eyes, my mind to nature. I interpret some things I have seen as evidence that nature is aware, does hear me, has control over itself and can exercise that control to prove something to me/'punish' me for not listening.

[AbruptSLR]

Are you guys talking about Integrated Information Theory?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/

mmghosh,

The article emphasizes that "free will" is critical to explaining consciousness, and in Reply #100 of the "Adapting to the Anthropocene" I address the issue of free will and preconditioning:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/

Extract: "Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness?
A radical new solution to the mind–body problem poses problems of its own

…
I traced this idea to physicist John Wheeler’s notion of “the it from bit,” which was inspired by apparent resonances between information theory and quantum mechanics. I wrote:

The concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informed—that is, a conscious observer capable of choice, or free will (sorry, I can't help it, free will is an obsession). If all the humans in the world vanished tomorrow, all the information would vanish, too. Lacking minds to surprise and change, books and televisions and computers would be as dumb as stumps and stones. This fact may seem crushingly obvious, but it seems to be overlooked by many information enthusiasts. The idea that mind is as fundamental as matter—which Wheeler's "participatory universe" notion implies--also flies in the face of everyday experience. Matter can clearly exist without mind, but where do we see mind existing without matter? Shoot a man through the heart, and his mind vanishes while his matter persists."

For the "Adapting to the Anthropocene" see the following link:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html

[icy voyeur]

I rewrote the original paragraph on why I believe the universe has intent below.

I prefer to only take issue with claims of fact (and only sometimes) and leave claims of belief alone. In that spirit, more power to you.